HOMEWORK AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO LEARNING

Full Report of Research Activities and Results

1. Background

(a) Policy context

The research took place during a period of considerable interest in homework among educational policymakers and
politicians. Since coming into office in 1997, the Labour Government has placed considerable emphasis on raising
standards of attainment in schools, particularly in literacy and numeracy, and homework has been seen as an
essential part of this drive to raise standards. In 1998 the Department for Education and Employment issued
Homework Guidelines which specified how much time should be spent on homework at different ages, and placed
much greater emphasis than before on the importance of homework in primary schools (DfEE, 1998a). At the same
time, the DfEE encouraged after-school homework clubs and other forms of study support (DfEE, 1988b), while
OFSTED published the findings of research it had sponsored on good homework practice (Weston, 1999). These
developments were accompanied by regular statements from ministers that homework was a good thing (eg
Blunkett, 1997), combined with public criticism of researchers who suggested that the evidence in favour of such
claims might be less than conclusive (eg Blunkett, 1999).

(b) Previous research

The research evidence concerning homework is in fact somewhat equivocal. While there has been a number of
studies showing an association between time spent on homework in secondary schools and attainment (eg Barber et
al, 1997; Tymms and Fitz-Gibbon 1992) there is much less evidence of a similar association at primary level (eg
Farrow, Tymms and Henderson, 1999; Muhlenbruck et al, 2000). In addition, more detailed studies of actual
homework practice suggest that it often falls short of what is considered desirable (eg Warrington and Younger,
1996). These conclusions are supported by two major reviews of the research literature which appeared during the
course of the project (Cowan and Hallam, 1999; Sharp, Keys and Benefield, 2001). Both reviews also indicated the
need for research which looked closely at how homework actually contributes to learning, particularly in the UK
context.

(c) Theoretical perspectives

The present research therefore attempted to fill this gap by studying in some detail the contribution which
homework makes to actual student learning. The project adopted a broad socio-cultural approach, drawing on the
work of theorists such as Wertsch (1991), Daniels (1993, 2001) and Pollard and Filer (1996). This approach
emphasises the need to understand learning within the social and cultural contexts in which it takes place, and led to
the development of a conceptual framework (see Appendix 1) which was used to structure both data collection and
data analysis. The socio-cultural perspective adopted by the project was enhanced by its transfer to Bristol in 1999,
and the opportunity to locate the work within the ongoing CLIO (Cultures and Learning in Organisations) initiative.
The project also benefited theoretically from its involvement in the ESRC seminar series Socio-Cultural Theory
and Learning Contexts

2. Aims and Objectives

The overall aims of the research were to examine the contribution which homework makes to pupil learning at
Key Stages Two and Three and to identify some of the conditions under which this contribution is enhanced
or reduced. These aims have been met by addressing the specific objectives as follows:

Objective 1: To further refine methodology for studying homework

During the course of the project the methodology developed in the pilot study was further refined and put into
practice. The methodology involved a two-stage data collection process, with the first stage focusing on homework
in general, and the second stage focusing on particular homework assignments (see section 3 below). The
techniques developed for the second stage, in which homework assignments are tracked through, have not, to the
best of our knowledge, been used in previous research. Nevertheless, they are not unproblematic: for example, there
is only a small window of opportunity after a homework has been completed when it is possible to question
students and teachers about it before it becomes overtaken by further classwork and homework.
Objective 2: To use this methodology to collect detailed data on specific homework assignments, looking in
particular at (a) tasks (b) pupil engagement (c) contexts (d) support (e) pupil characteristics and (f) learning
outcomes.

The methodology described in section 3 below was used to collect extensive data on homework in all of the above
areas. The data collection was carried out meticulously by the Research Fellow and has resulted in a high quality
and possibly unique data-set which can be revisited from several different perspectives.

Objective 3: To develop and test a conceptual framework of possible influences on homework and learning
outcomes

The conceptual framework developed during the pilot stages of the research was refined further and used to
structure both data collection and data analysis (see for example the Circles case study in Nominated Publication
2, Appendix 1). One limitation of the framework which emerged during the present research was that it did not give
sufficient weight to the importance of the subject context: there were clear differences between subject areas,
particularly at KS3, in the approaches adopted to homework.

Objective 4: To contribute to wider theoretical understanding of the ways in which tasks, contexts and
learner characteristics interact to generate learning outcomes

Data from the homework project has been used to inform and extend wider theoretical debate in a number of ways.
For example, we have used project data to develop thinking with colleagues in the GSoE about learning at the
interface of two cultures (see Nominated Publication 1). We have also attempted to develop Sfards (1998)
theoretical distinction between two metaphors of learning learning as acquisition and learning as participation -
and followed her proposal that we use these metaphors simultaneously rather than embrace one at the expense of the
other. Project data was used to illustrate and develop this argument in a paper at the BERA Conference 2001 and a
seminar at the University of Birmingham.

Objective 5: To contribute to current national interest in homework by bringing the research to the attention
of policy-makers, practitioners, parents and the public.

At an early stage in the project we set up a project Advisory Group, which contained representatives from DfES and
OFSTED, a primary and secondary headteacher, an independent homework consultant, and two academics. The
Group met three times during the lifetime of the project and was extremely valuable in establishing a multi-
directional dialogue between the project team, policy-makers, practitioners and academics. A dissemination strategy
for the project was developed in consultation with the Advisory Group, including a verification seminar held at the
DfES in March 2002, and further dissemination activities are planned (see section 7 below).

3. Methods

(a) Sample
The sample was based around four secondary schools and four primary schools in the South West of England. The
secondary schools served very contrasting catchment areas. Two schools had a high proportion of students eligible
for free school meals, with most of the students in one of these schools coming from ethnic minority groups. A third
school was a city based church school, which drew students from all over the city, while the fourth served a large
rural area. The catchment areas for the primary schools were very similar to the secondary schools, as each primary
school was a feeder school for one of the secondary schools.

In each secondary school we focused on Year 8, and selected six students (three boys, three girls; two high attainers,
two medium and two low) for more intensive study. Data was actually collected on a larger number of students, as
additional students were included either as back-up or in order to comply with requests from the participating
schools. In the primary schools we focused on Year 5 and again selected six students for intensive study. We also
interviewed at least one of the parents of each of these students.

At Key Stage 3, a total of 64 teachers from the five subject areas of English, maths, science, modern languages and
humanities were involved in the study. This number was larger than anticipated, mainly due to the widespread
setting of students across all subject areas. Four class teachers were also interviewed. At Key Stage 2, seven
teachers were involved. In addition, we interviewed the headteacher of each participating school.

(b) Data collected

A range of different kinds of data was collected:
(i) Interviews
Each student was interviewed twice, usually at home. The first interview was about homework in general, and the
second related to a specific piece of homework the student had been set. Each teacher was also interviewed twice,
with the first interview again being about homework in general and the second about the specific piece of
homework the student had been set. Each parent was interviewed once, covering areas such as their perceptions of
homework in general, their aspirations for their child, and their own role in homework. A few parents also
commented on the specific homework after the second interview with the student. The headteachers each received a
single interview focusing on overall school homework policy and practices.

All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. Each transcript was then checked by the Research Fellow against
the original tape-recording a labour-intensive process but one which was necessary to identify small but
potentially significant errors in transcribing.

(ii) Field notes

These were wide-ranging. Notes were made in schools, homes and communities about a range of factors which
might have a bearing on homework in each of these contexts. In addition, observations were made of lessons in
which homework was set, in order to relate the content of the homework to the work covered in the lesson. Overall,
data was collected on 65 different homework assignments at Key Stage 3, and 15 at Key Stage 2.

(iii) Documentation
A wide range of documentation was collected, including copies of homework policies and students homework
planners. In addition, photocopies were made of all the work produced by the students in response to the specific
homework which was set.

4. Results
This section summarises the main findings emerging from the research. Both quantitative and qualitative techniques
have been used. The findings are presented as answers to our seven research questions, drawing on data from KS3.
This is followed by a section describing how homework at KS2 differs from that at KS3. Throughout, we refer to
illustrative examples and more extended discussion in Nominated Publications 1 and (especially) 2. These are
referred to as NP1 and NP2 in the text.

RQ1: What kinds of task are set for homework?

(a) Taxonomy of tasks

A taxonomy was developed from an analysis of the homework tasks observed at KS3 (see NP2, p18). Applying this
taxonomy to the data showed that practice and reinforcement homeworks were the most common in all subjects
except English (see NP1, p4). In English, the most common form of homework was production or creation in a
particular form or genre (eg Write a news item for the front page of a newspaper on the death of Julius Ceasar).
This type of homework was occasionally seen in other subjects (eg in humanities when students were required to
write a diary of a slave). Research homeworks were not common but were observed in all subjects except
languages. Revision homeworks seemed to cause particular difficulties for some students. These difficulties seemed
to arise because no one had explicitly taught them what was involved in revising a topic for homework (see extract
from HG student, NP2, p18). Finally, we should note that we rarely observed homework being used simply to finish
off classwork.

(b) Relation to life outside school

The vast majority of homework tasks were closely related to the school curriculum, and required few, if any,
connections to be made with life outside school. There were however some exceptions to this general pattern, and
these homeworks were reported by the students to be more engaging and enjoyable than normal homeworks (see
NP2, p19 for examples of these).

Some of the students were asked whether there was anything in their life outside school which had helped them with
particular homeworks. The great majority said that they couldn't think of anything. The same group of students were
also asked whether they could see ways in which their homework might help them with (or be relevant to) life
outside school. Again, almost all the students replied 'no' or answered in a rather general and hypothetical fashion
(e.g. their science homework might help them if they were later to become a scientist).

(c) Position in the flow of work

Although homework has sometimes been referred to as prep, very few of the tasks we observed were preparatory
to a lesson. Instead, the majority of homeworks in all subjects were related to and built on the work of the preceding
lesson. It may be that there are risks associated with setting preparatory homework, in that non-completion may
mean that students are unable to participate fully in the subsequent lesson (see the Circles case study in NP2,
Appendix 1, for a good example of this).

Although homework mostly arose from a previous lesson, it was unusual for it to feed into future lessons. In most
cases, the homework task was the final element in the work flow. One rare exception was when students watched a
video of Cromwell in a humanities lesson and then had to identify 5 good and 5 bad points about him for
homework: this was to prepare them for a question about him in later coursework.

The content of a small number of homeworks was unrelated to the previous lesson. This occurred most often where
a homework booklet had been prepared that the students worked through each week. In one school, both the maths
and English departments used booklets of this kind with the lower sets. Some of the teachers were unhappy with
this as they wanted to relate the homework more to classwork. In addition, some of the students using the maths
booklets had difficulty completing all the questions - and their parents were constrained in their ability to help -
since each paper included a variety of topics none of which was easily accessible in the students' immediately
previous work.

RQ2: To what extent and in what ways do students engage with these tasks?

(a) Completion of homework

One way of looking at student engagement with homework tasks is whether the homework is actually completed or
not. At KS3 just under a quarter of homework-instances1 were not set or not completed. 7% of homework-
instances were not completed because of absence, while 11% were not completed for reasons other than absence.
The proportions for non-completion for reasons other than absence were compared according to gender, attainment
level, school and subject but there were no differences, although it should be noted that the numbers involved are
small.

There appeared to be three main reasons for non-completion of homework (other than absence). First, students felt
that there was little to be gained from doing the homework. Secondly, students were unable to cope with the content
of the homework, although they didn't always express their reasons in such terms. The third reason given for non-
completion was time pressure. In addition, students sometimes said they had not completed homeworks which
looked boring (see NP2, pp24-5).

(b) Effort put into homework

Another way of looking at engagement is to look at the amount of effort which students put into particular
homework tasks. At KS3, we found there was a great deal of variation both within and across students and tasks in
this respect. In particular, we were struck by the extent to which students appeared to operate strategically in
deciding which homeworks to put a lot of effort into and which to put in minimal effort. We were also surprised by
the extent to which students at this stage were motivated by external factors, such as rewards or stars (see NP2, p12
for a table summarising students reasons for putting more or less effort into homework).

RQ3: What are the main contexts in which homework originates and is carried out, and how is homework
perceived and valued within those contexts?

(a) Setting homework

Homework was set by the teachers during lessons in the classroom. The majority of homeworks were set at the end
of the lesson, but there were clear differences across subjects on this. Almost all maths, language and humanities
homeworks were set at the end of the lesson, possibly reflecting the predominance of practice and reinforcement
homeworks in these subjects. In contrast, science and English homeworks tended to be set earlier in the lesson. In
some cases this allowed the students to start work on the homework during the lesson itself.

In many cases, the setting of homework and the request to get your planners out effectively signalled the end of
the lesson. The students would rapidly go off task and transfer attention to bags, coats etc. This meant that the
homework assignment was not always communicated as clearly or effectively as it might be. In some of the parent
interviews it was commented that the students did not always manage to get the homework down fully.

(b) Carrying out homework

1
The same tasks was often set for more than one student. In some cases it was completed and in others it was not.
Homework-instance is used as the unit to represent each individual students response to the homework task.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the great majority of homeworks were carried out at home. There were, however, some
exceptions to this. Some students tried to get as much homework as possible done while they were still at school
for example, at lunchtime, in the breaks between lessons or even during the lessons themselves. Other students
needed to use school resources such as the library or computer room or found working at school less distracting
than working at home.

When homework was done at home, it was more likely to be done in the students bedrooms than in the more public
family rooms. One implication of this is that it is more difficult for parents to know what is being done for
homework and how much time is spent on it when it takes place outside of the public rooms. Those students who
carried out their homework in public rooms often managed to combine their homework with other activities, such as
watching TV. Indeed, several students said music or TV helped them get through the homework, especially if it was
boring.

There seemed to be different expectations across the four schools as to where homework was done. In the two
schools with a low proportion of free school meals, teachers were more likely to expect homework to be done at
home. In the other two schools, teachers were more accepting of homework being done at school, as long as it was
not done during lessons.

(c) Students perspectives on homework

The KS3 students fell into three roughly equal groups those who were positive about homework, those who were
negative, and those who had mixed feelings. The main positive reasons given for homework were that it helped in
some way with their learning, and that it gave them something to do at home. The main negative reason given was
that homework encroached on what they saw as their own time (see NP2, p11).

Most students saw the purpose of homework as helping them understand or remember work they had covered in
class, although some were quite sceptical about whether homework actually served these purposes. Very few
students thought that homework was about independent learning or about helping them take responsibility for or
organise their own learning.

Most of the students felt that the amount of time they spent on homework was about right, with some suggesting
there was too much. Two students felt there was not enough homework.

(d) Parents perspectives on homework

At KS3, the great majority of parents were in favour of homework, and were concerned or alarmed at the thought
that it might be abolished. They saw homework as serving two main purposes, which in fact were somewhat in
conflict. The first was that homework was essentially an extension of school: it could provide extra time to get
schoolwork done and/or to reflect on lessons. The second was that homework offered something essentially
different from school: in particular, an opportunity for students to develop study skills and work independently.
Where parents expressed negative views about homework it was because they saw it as encroaching on students
out-of-school lives (see NP2, pp12-13)

The parents were much less satisfied than the students with the amount of time being spent on homework, with
nearly half the parents thinking there should be more time spent on homework.

Most parents said that they were prepared to help their children with homework if asked and/or they were able to.
Parents cited difficulties with particular subjects and difficulties understanding the requirements of the task as
causing problems. The subject most commonly mentioned in this connection, especially by mothers, was maths.

Parents held different views on whether they should check their childs work or not. Some monitored their
childrens work quite closely, while others thought such a practice undesirable (see NP2, pp13-14)

(e)Teachers perspectives on homework

The teachers were much more ambivalent about homework than the parents. On the positive side, many teachers felt
homework allowed them to extend their teaching beyond the classroom, and provided an opportunity for students to
practice procedures learnt in class, to consolidate or build on classwork. Some teachers said they simply couldnt
get through the curriculum without it.

At the same time, many teachers felt under pressure to set homework whether they felt it was appropriate or not.
They saw this pressure coming from a range of sources, including government policy, school policy and parents. A
common perception was that the teachers felt locked into a school homework timetable which meant they had to set
homework at certain times in the week, whether or not this fitted with their teaching requirements. Several teachers
summed up this situation with the phrase I dont like homework for homeworks sake:
Some teachers were sensitive to the diverse circumstances in which students carried out homework: for example,
they were aware that some students had fewer resources in the home than others. In some cases this sensitivity could
lead to teachers setting less challenging can do homeworks (see NP2, pp14-15).

(f) Headteachers perspectives on homework

The four headteachers at KS3 were all positive about homework.They saw homework as serving a range of
purposes, of which the most important was its capacity to encourage independent learning. Two headteachers
explicitly referred to the symbolic value of homework - i.e. it was often associated with a good school, much as
uniform was.

Particular issues for the headteachers were that of developing and implementing homework policies, and dealing
with variation between subject departments and between individual teachers. The headteachers also saw their role as
balancing and managing parental expectations about homework (see NP2, pp15-17).

RQ4: What kinds of support are provided for homework within these contexts?

(a) Support at school

(i) When homework was set

In about half the homeworks, the teacher gave some additional explanation when setting the task. This was usually
extra information about the task and how to complete it. It was rare, however, for the teachers to make it explicit
what they would be looking for in a homework.

Some teachers directed the students to sources of information and resources when setting the homework,
particularly if it was a research homework. For example, when setting the Cromwell homework referred to earlier,
the teacher checked which students had access to Encarta or the Internet at home and which ones could access them
at school. She also promised to be available one lunchtime if anyone had any difficulties with the work. This kind of
support was however rare.

(ii) Feedback on completed homework

The great majority of written feedback provided by teachers on written homework could be seen as summative
assessment. That is, the teachers were primarily concerned with whether the homework had been completed
properly, whether the students had produced correct or appropriate responses, with pointing out errors and with
providing an overall score, grade or comment which summarised how well the student had performed. In only a
minority of cases could the feedback be seen as providing some formative information for the student. When this
occurred, however, it was likely to be appreciated by the students (see NP2, pp 22-23)

(iii) Rewards and punishment

All four schools in the project used some kind of merit or reward system, such as stars, stamps or stickers. It was
noticeable that among the sample of marked homework such rewards were awarded only to low-attaining students.
This might be a statistical quirk but it may reflect a tendency for low attaining students to be more readily
rewarded. It was also noticeable that negative feedback was rare.

(b) Support at home

About a fifth of the students at KS3 said they had received help from family members, usually their parents, when
completing their specific homeworks. Within the families, there seemed to be some clear specialisation along
gender lines: mothers were much more likely to help with English, languages and humanities, while fathers,
brothers, and uncles were more likely to help with science and maths.

Most teachers thought that parents should play a managing role in students homework, for example by ensuring
suitable circumstances for doing homework (place, time, quiet etc), being aware of what homework was set, and
ensuring it was completed. However, teachers were divided as to whether parents should be involved beyond this.
Some teachers felt that students shouldnt need help with homework, while others thought parental help was
acceptable as long as they didnt do the work for the student. Teachers were also strongly divided over whether
parents should check completed homework. In practice, it seems that the teachers seriously underestimated the
extent to which the students were getting help with their homework at home.

(c) Support from peers

About a fifth of the KS3 students said they had discussed their homework with other students. However this figure
included fairly minor interaction as when students checked their work against that of other students just before
handing it in. In about only one tenth of instances had students worked together on their homework, usually over the
phone (see NP2, p21)
There were no differences between male and female students in this respect. However, high attaining students were
twice as likely as middle and low attaining students to have worked with other students. While the numbers are too
small to carry much weight, it is worth noting that friends may be less able to act as a resource for each other in the
lower sets.

RQ5: What effects do pupil characteristics (such as age, gender and learning identity) have on the way
homework is perceived and carried out?

(i) Age
(See discussion below of Homework at Key Stage 2)

(ii) Gender
Somewhat surprisingly, gender did not feature as a prominent issue in the research. For example, we found no
gender differences at KS3 in students feelings about homework, in their completion of homework, in the extent to
which they worked with other students on homework, or in the amount they thought they had gained from
homework. When asked directly about gender, students and teachers responded either by saying there were no
differences between boys and girls, or that girls were more likely to put more effort in and take greater care over
presentation. Parents were unlikely to say much about gender unless they themselves had experience of both sexes.

(iii) Learning identity

At the start of the research we predicted that learning identity, which we defined as how students see themselves
as learners within the various contexts in which they are participating would be an important factor in homework.
In practice, it was not easy to operationalise this concept. One way we attempted to do so was by asking students to
compare themselves with other students in terms of the amount of effort they put into homework. However, this did
not lead to much differentiation among the students. All the KS3 students thought there were students who put less
effort in than them, and almost all (88%) thought there were students who put more effort in.

When asked what they thought about students who put in more effort, the students answers tended to play down
their relevance: phrases like I dont mind, and it doesnt bother me really were common. In contrast, when the
students were asked what they thought about students who put in less effort, more than 80% were critical: they
suggested these students were a bit lazy or acted stupid. Two students said that those students who put in less
effort thought they were cool (as opposed to actually being cool). Clearly this is an important dimension for the
students, although more detailed analysis of individual cases suggests that there is no simple relationship with either
attitudes to homework or actual homework behaviour

There was some evidence that a students homework identity could be different from their classroom identity.
For example, one low-attaining boy was frequently in trouble at school. He said that if his friends at school were
mucking about he would join in, as he didnt want to be seen as a keener (a local defamatory term for someone
who takes their work seriously). However, he was very positive about homework and put a lot of effort into it. A
high attaining Moslem girl from the same school had a similar profile: at school she was outgoing and got into
trouble, whereas at home she was extremely studious.

(iv) Attainment
There was some evidence that students homework practice was related to their level of attainment. For example, its
was noted above that high attaining students were more likely to have worked with other students than middle or
low attaining students. In addition, high attaining students were less likely to say that they had gained nothing or
not much from the specific homeworks (see below). One reason for this may be that high attaining students were
sometimes observed to rework the homework task to make it more interesting or more challenging for themselves
(see for example the science homework described in NP2, p26). Middle and low attaining students did not seem to
create their own differentiated task in this way.

RQ6: What are the learning outcomes arising from particular homework tasks?
Despite careful and detailed scrutiny of the data, it often proved very difficult to identify unambiguously any
learning outcomes which might have resulted from particular homeworks. Indeed, it was often easier to identify
where for one reason or another learning had not taken place.
Having said that, there were a number of instances where the students were clearly aware of what they had gained
from the homework and where their views accorded with those of the teachers. This was particularly the case where
the teacher set out objectives for the homework as part of the homework setting (see NP2, p29). In addition, there
were a small number of occasions where students reported a dramatic shift in their thinking as the result of a
homework assignment. (see NP2, p32).

In contrast, there were a substantial number of occasions where the learning outcomes seemed to be small or non-
existent. As we saw earlier, just under a quarter of homework-instances were not set or not completed. in addition,
the students themselves felt they had gained nothing or not much from over a quarter of completed homework
tasks. For the most part this was because the students already knew or thought they knew what they were
supposed to learn from the homework. This applied particularly to languages homeworks (see NP2, p26).

Students also reported that they had been faced with some sort of difficulty in over half the completed homeworks.
Sometimes they handled the difficulty as they worked through the homework, while in other cases they sought help
from family or peers (see above). Despite this, in many cases students were unable to complete the homework
successfully. Moreover, when we conducted the second interview with the students, we found many instances of
students continuing to have difficulty with the homework content, despite the homework having been marked and
feedback given (see NP2, pp27-8).

The majority of students reported no change to their enthusiasm or confidence as a result of completing homeworks.
An increase in enthusiasm was reported after 20 percent of homeworks, with the figure for growth in confidence
being very slightly higher. No increase in enthusiasm was reported after language homeworks (see NP2, p31).

RQ7: How do tasks, contexts and pupil characteristics interact with each other to enhance or reduce learning
outcomes?

The data suggest that there are no simple relationships between tasks, contexts, student characteristics and learning
outcomes. For example, as we saw earlier, students act strategically: the same student will put in a lot of effort for
one homework assignment but relatively little on another. In addition, the same task can produce very different
responses from different students (see the Circles case study, NP2 Appendix 1). Diversity is particularly noticeable
among the parents. For example, one parent may be opposed to homework but will support their child to a
successful learning outcome, while another may be in favour of homework but either cannot or will not provide
help on a given occasion.

Despite this complexity, we were able to identify two factors which seemed to influence learning outcomes in a
persistent manner. First, it was clear that some kinds of homework task were regarded more positively by the
students, were likely to lead to greater student engagement, and were associated with positive outcomes such as
increased enthusiasm and confidence. Homeworks which required students to relate to the world outside school, as
well as other research homeworks, were particularly likely to fall into this category (see NP2, p31-32).

Secondly, there was evidence that positive learning outcomes were more likely when the teacher made the
homework and its learning objectives more salient and explicit. Students were more likely to engage positively and
enthusiastically if the homework was discussed with the class beforehand, and if the task requirements and
consequences of non-completion were clearly stated preferably in writing. Similarly, there was evidence that
student learning was enhanced when teachers provided explicit feedback on the completed homework to the whole
class, although this did not happen very often. When the teachers worked through the homework again in ways that
allowed the students to contribute and feel involved, it appeared to increase student understanding and engagement
(see NP2, pp29-30). From a socio-cultural perspective, this could be seen as strengthening the shared social culture
of the classroom.

5. Homework at KS2
The data collection at KS2 took place in the period shortly after the introduction of the DfEE Homework Guidelines
and the Literacy and Numeracy Hours. There was clear evidence that these initiatives were changing the nature of
homework at KS2. In particular, there was evidence across all four schools that homework tasks were becoming
more formalised, and starting to resemble those found at KS3. There was also evidence that systems for
encouraging and supporting parental involvement in childrens reading (eg home-school reading diaries) had
declined in the project schools (NP2, pp32-34)
In the KS2 schools, teachers and headteachers raised issues about the resourcing of homework. Teachers felt they
were being asked to do more work i.e. in setting and marking homework but were being given no extra time or
pay for this. There was also some confusion about whether homework was compulsory at this stage. Schools were
interpreting the guidelines as making the setting of homework compulsory, but not the completion of it. Some
students and especially low achieving boys - appeared to be taking advantage of this and avoiding doing
homework. In general, students at KS2 appeared much less clear about the purposes of homework (NP2, pp34-36)

There was more diversity in parents attitudes towards homework at KS2 than at KS3. Amongst parents who were
in favour of homework, there was a particularly high proportion of parents from ethnic minorities. There was
however a sizeable proportion of parents who were not in favour of homework, feeling that it was not appropriate
for children at this age (NP2, 36-37).

6. Conclusions
The main conclusions to be drawn so far are as follows:

(a) Homework is a practice which has considerable symbolic value. It is often promoted as a good thing and
regarded as a sign of a good school, particularly by those who are less engaged in its day-to-day
implementation such as politicians, headteachers and parents. At the same time, there is some confusion as to
its purposes, and these are sometimes in conflict: for example, if homework is intended to create links between
home and school, then promoting after-school homework clubs will not achieve this end.

(b) In contrast, those who are most involved in the day-to-day implementation of homework teachers and
students feel much more ambivalent about it. Teachers can see its potential to enhance classroom learning but
often feel pressured into setting homework whether it is appropriate or not. Students also see that it can help
their learning but resent its intrusion into their out-of-school lives. Both teachers and students would welcome
attempts to improve the quality of homework at the expense of its quantity.

(c) A recurring theme in our research is that of diversity and heterogeneity, both within and between schools and
(particularly) between families. This diversity makes it hard to locate simple relationships between the many
factors involved. In addition, some teachers respond to this diversity by setting less challenging homeworks,
thereby opening themselves to criticisms of dumbing down the curriculum. The difficult issues raised by this
diversity require more public discussion (eg Hallgarten, 2000)

(d) Homework has the potential to make an important contribution to classroom learning, and we saw several
examples of this in our research. In practice this potential is not always realised. Homeworks are not completed,
or are not seen as valuable by students when they are completed. Difficulties and misunderstandings are often
left unresolved. Feedback from teachers is usually summative and not seen as helpful. Part of the problem may
lie in the nature of homework as a series of tasks to be completed away from the classroom. Attention therefore
tends to focus on whether the tasks have been completed successfully or not. But completing a task does not
necessarily imply that any learning has occurred, as our detailed analysis of specific homeworks shows.

(e) Homework also has the potential to make links between school and students out-of-school lives. In our
research, this rarely happened. This is primarily because most homework assignments are basically elements of
the school curriculum, and are not seen by students as being relevant to their out-of-school lives. In addition,
although homework is done at home, it is usually an individual activity carried out in isolation from other
family members or friends. In our research, the few homework assignments which did require students to make
connections with out-of-school life were received with interest and enthusiasm by the students.

(f) Our research also suggests there is a strong case for making homework more visible and for engaging students
in more explicit discussion of its purposes. We saw several cases where difficulties arose because the nature of
what students were doing, and why, had not been made explicit. Equally, there were several occasions when
students were helped by clear and explicit explanations of what was required and what they needed to do to be
successful. More generally, it was clear that students would benefit from a more explicit discussion of notions
such as revision and learning.

(g) Finally, our research suggests that implementing the Homework Guidelines at KS2 is raising significant issues.
Although there is some evidence of changes in practice, there is also some evidence of resistance from teachers
 and parents to the introduction of more formal versions of homework. Given the concerns our research has
raised about homework at KS3, it is important that secondary practices are not simply introduced into primary
schools in an unthinking way.

7. Activities

(a) Advisory Group

The project was extremely well served by its Advisory Group (for membership see section 2 above). The Group met
three times during the lifetime of the project and was invaluable in providing an up-to-date policy briefings from
DfES and OFSTED, giving critical feedback on research methods and findings, and jointly developing a
dissemination strategy. Members of the Advisory Group also provided informal individual advice to the project
team outside of these meetings. In many ways the Advisory Group provided a model example of how researchers
and users can collaborate on a research project, particularly one which is likely to produce findings critical of
government policy.

(b) Verification seminar

The DfES representatives on the Advisory Group were instrumental in setting up a verification seminar at the DfES
in March 2002. Among the 25 participants were representatives from OFSTED and DfES (including those with
responsibilities for the Literacy Strategy, Numeracy Strategy and Study Support), primary and secondary
headteachers, and other researchers on homework. The research team prepared a full report on the research
(Nominated Publication 2) and this was discussed in detail at the seminar. In general, the feedback on the research
was extremely positive, with many participants saying it provided a recognisable and authentic account of current
homework practices and the issues surrounding them. Further dissemination opportunities arose directly from the
seminar.

8. Outputs

(a) Presentations

Paper presented at BERA conference, Belfast, August 1998

Staff/student seminar at Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, October 1999

Paper presented at conference on Cultures of Learning, University of Bristol, April 2001

Drever Memorial Lecture, University of Edinburgh, May 2001

Research seminar at School of Education, University of Exeter, June 2001

Plenary address at the International Psychology of Mathematics Education Conference, Utrecht, July 2001.

Presentation at BERA conference, Leeds, September 2001

Seminar at School of Education, University of Birmingham, November 2001

(b) Publications

Chapter entitled Homework: learning at the interface between home and school
cultures in Claxton, G., Pollard, A., and Sutherland, R. (eds.) Teaching and Learning where Worldviews
Meet, Trentham Books, 2002, in press.

(For future plans see main End of Award Report)

8. Impacts

The Advisory Group provided ongoing contact with policy-makers and practitioners throughout the project, and the
project findings were well received at the verification seminar (see Section 6 above). In particular, it was agreed that
project findings would be incorporated into the Literacy Strategy web-site and taken account of in the imminent
revision of the DfES Homework Guidelines. The project has also aroused considerable interest through
presentations to academics, and further impact is anticipated through the planned dissemination activities. However,
it is still relatively early to assess the projects full impact.

9. Future research priorities

We have identified the following areas where further research is needed:

(a) An action-research project aimed at improving homework practice in a number of contrasting schools and
contrasting communities

(b) A study of the potential of using ICT to link home and school learning

(c) Investigation of the issues surrounding homework at transfer from Key Stage 2 to 3. This is currently being
examined as one strand of the ESRC project Home School Knowledge Exchange funded under Phase II
of the Teaching and Learning Research Programme, and which had its origins in the present study

(d) A study of the way in which homework is covered in Initial Teacher Training and how this might be
improved

(e) Theoretically, further application of participation models of learning to the study of learning in school:
for example, a study of how students are apprenticed into school practices such as homework.
Appendix 1: Conceptual framework

school context

classroom context

nature feedback
of on
task task

pupil engagement learning

with task outcomes

peer group
home context context

pupil
characteristics
Appendix 2: References

Barber, M, Myers, K., Denning, T. Graham, J. and Johnson, M. (1997) School performance and extra-curricular
provision. London: DfEE

Blunkett, D. (1997) Turn your children off TV and on to learning, The Mail on Sunday, 22 June.

Blunkett, D. (1999) The Independent, July

Cowan, R. and Hallam, S. (1999) What do we know about homework? Viewpoint, 9, Institute of Education,
University of London.

Daniels, H. (1993) Charting the Agenda: educational activity after Vygotsky London: Routledge

Daniels, H. (2001) Vygotsky and Pedagogy London: Routledge

Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1998a) Homework: Guidelines for Primary and Secondary
Schools. London: DfEE

Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1998b) Extending Opportunity: a national framework for study
support London: DfEE

Farrow, S., Tymms, P. and Henderson, B. (1999) Homework and attainment in primary schools, British Educational
Research Journal, 25, 232-341

Hallgarten, J. (2000) Parents Exist, OK? Issues and visions for parent-school relationships. London: Central Books

Muhlenbruck, L., Cooper, H., Nye, B. and Lindsay, J. (2000) Homework and achievement: explaining the different
strengths of relation at the elementary and secondary school levels. Social Psychology of Education, 3,
295-317.

Pollard, A. and Filer, A. (1996) The Social World of Childrens Learning London: Cassell

Sfard, A. (1998) On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one, Educational Researcher, 27,
2, 4-13.

Sharp, C., Keys, W. and Benefield, P. (2001) Homework: a review of recent research. Windsor: NFER

Tymms, P. and Fitz-Gibbon, C. (1992) The relationship of homework to A-level results. Educational Research, 34,
3-10.

Warrington, M. and Younger, M. (1996) Homework: dilemmas and difficulties. In Rudduck, J, Chaplain R. and
Wallace, G (eds) School Improvement: what can pupils tell us? 87-100. London: David Fulton

Wertsch, J. (1991) Voices of the Mind: a socio-cultural approach to mediated action London: Harvester.

Weston, P. (1999) Homework: learning from practice London: OFSTED